I disagree. They made the right pick when they were on the clock (credit deserved), but they were quite often only in the position they were in due to luck in the lottery and luck with the picks made ahead of theirs (ie: Portland drafting Oden, Miami drafting Beasley and Memphis drafting Thabeet).

I do agree that they have done well with later picks. Just don't point at consecutive #2, #3 and #4 picks as purely good drafting. And don't point to the Raptors draft picks at #9, #13, #5 and #8 as comparison and justification for arguing that BC is a poor drafter; that's just not fair.

So then the Valanciunas pick was lucky by BC. Let's take that one off his resume because Cleveland should've drafted him.

To a point I would agree. I expected Cleveland to take Valanciunas at #4 and was pleasantly surprised when they passed. There were some additional circumstances surrounding that pick though, mainly him not being eligable to join the NBA for at least one season. I also would argue that in general, the further you get in the draft, the less certainty/consensus there is and the more it comes down to subjective analysis.

Another example is Davis. Had he become a stud PF, then BC would have been praised for taking a guy who dropped far lower than expected. BC has since said that Davis wasn't even on their internal big board, because they had zero expectations of him being available to them at #13.

With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.

The draft lottery itself is all about luck, when it comes to assigning draft positions. It's a lot easier to be 'right' the higher you're picking. The teams that can consistently draft productive rotation players in the late 1st round and 2nd round are far more impressive to me than teams that get top-5 picks right. I think the whole discussion just illustrates how awful it is being stuck in the middle-classs wasteland of the NBA, where you're consistently drafting in the #10-20 range... not good enough to truly compete and not bad/lucky enough to get a top-5 talent on draft night.

To a point I would agree. I expected Cleveland to take Valanciunas at #4 and was pleasantly surprised when they passed. There were some additional circumstances surrounding that pick though, mainly him not being eligable to join the NBA for at least one season. I also would argue that in general, the further you get in the draft, the less certainty/consensus there is and the more it comes down to subjective analysis.

Another example is Davis. Had he become a stud PF, then BC would have been praised for taking a guy who dropped far lower than expected. BC has since said that Davis wasn't even on their internal big board, because they had zero expectations of him being available to them at #13.

With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.

The draft lottery itself is all about luck, when it comes to assigning draft positions. It's a lot easier to be 'right' the higher you're picking. The teams that can consistently draft productive rotation players in the late 1st round and 2nd round are far more impressive to me than teams that get top-5 picks right. I think the whole discussion just illustrates how awful it is being stuck in the middle-classs wasteland of the NBA, where you're consistently drafting in the #10-20 range... not good enough to truly compete and not bad/lucky enough to get a top-5 talent on draft night.

well when you phrase player A dropping 1 spot and player B dropping into someones lap - ofcourse they aren't going to seem equivalent. However they both dropped 1 spot (Val was a consensus #4) from where they were expected to go... so I'm really failing to understand why Durant fell into OKC's 'lap' but Val just happened to drop?

that second bold part - its also much easier to make mistake as there are dozens of possible players to miss on. And that in turn makes it more difficult to have a good draft record.

third bolded part sounds distinctly opposite of what you were saying this offseason. Should Presti therefore not get credit for tanking and thereby not leaving himself in the NBA wasteland? Something you referred to as 'luck'?

T
With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.

So do you not agree that that the uncertainty of JV not being able to play in the NBA the first year of the draft and actually no one truly know when he would allowed to to join his Drafted team had nothing to do with Cleveland not picking him? I was surprised they went with the pick they did as I am sure all of Cleveland fan base were! However, that buyout had everything to do with him not getting drafted by Cleveland!

There was a lot of "nothing fazes this guy" talk about Bargnani's personality in 2006, implying that he's got the mental toughness of a Bobby Fischer.

Who would've thought that any type of motivational technique, roster changes, positional changes, and coaching changes also don't faze him :|

Woohaa, Bobby Fischer was a complete lunatic; if they thought he had anything mentally comparable to him they should have run far far away, it's definately a negative. Now if they thought he had the mental make-up of Kasparov or Lasker, that would have been something else.

Something big is missing in this thread (if I didn't miss it). All talk about a pick being good or bad is with the assumption that the players develop irrespective of the context of the team that drafted him. Development and becoming a good player does not take place in a vacuum. It's very well possible that one of the good players that were drafted by the Thunder would not have developed the way he did on another team.

Also, for those advocating to always draft BPA without regards of fit, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the type of players and positions they played, that the Thunder did consider fit as part of their process to decide who was the best player available.

I think there are quite a few players picked high who ended up in a situation that was a bad fit and consequently didn't develop as well as they could have in another situation. Maybe some people (or a lot) see this differently but I don't have to go any further back than last year's number 2 pick, Derrick Williams, for an example of someone ending up in a bad situation to develop who might have done better elsewhere.

Some teams are much better at developing players than others and some situations are much better for the development of a specific player than other situation. Simply looking back at a draft and deciding whether a certain pick was wrong or right based on how a player has developed years is way too simplistic. Context matters for how players turn out.

Something big is missing in this thread (if I didn't miss it). All talk about a pick being good or bad is with the assumption that the players develop irrespective of the context of the team that drafted him. Development and becoming a good player does not take place in a vacuum. It's very well possible that one of the good players that were drafted by the Thunder would not have developed the way he did on another team.

Also, for those advocating to always draft BPA without regards of fit, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the type of players and positions they played, that the Thunder did consider fit as part of their process to decide who was the best player available.

I think there are quite a few players picked high who ended up in a situation that was a bad fit and consequently didn't develop as well as they could have in another situation. Maybe some people (or a lot) see this differently but I don't have to go any further back than last year's number 2 pick, Derrick Williams, for an example of someone ending up in a bad situation to develop who might have done better elsewhere.

Some teams are much better at developing players than others and some situations are much better for the development of a specific player than other situation. Simply looking back at a draft and deciding whether a certain pick was wrong or right based on how a player has developed years is way too simplistic. Context matters for how players turn out.

Good point. Rondo is another guy I always think about in that regard, especially as he was a late 1st round pick (#21) in Bargnani's infamous 2006 draft. He had a less than stellar rookie season, playing behind Telfair on a bad Boston team. The next year, he became the starting PG with Boston's big-3 and he blossomed. Had he been drafted by a team that kept him as a backup PG for several seasons or by a bad team that rushed him into a starting role with exaggerated expectations headed on him, there's a strong liklihood that he wouldn't be the same player he is today.

You're absolutely right that situation plays a key role in player development, which in turn plays a key role in determining the quality of the pick used to draft said player.

Good point. Rondo is another guy I always think about in that regard, especially as he was a late 1st round pick (#21) in Bargnani's infamous 2006 draft. He had a less than stellar rookie season, playing behind Telfair on a bad Boston team. The next year, he became the starting PG with Boston's big-3 and he blossomed. Had he been drafted by a team that kept him as a backup PG for several seasons or by a bad team that rushed him into a starting role with exaggerated expectations headed on him, there's a strong liklihood that he wouldn't be the same player he is today.

You're absolutely right that situation plays a key role in player development, which in turn plays a key role in determining the quality of the pick used to draft said player.

Rondo is a great example. Suppose he was drafted by a team like our team last year, with barely any shooters around him to space the floor. Considering his own bad shot, what would have happened?

Something big is missing in this thread (if I didn't miss it). All talk about a pick being good or bad is with the assumption that the players develop irrespective of the context of the team that drafted him. Development and becoming a good player does not take place in a vacuum. It's very well possible that one of the good players that were drafted by the Thunder would not have developed the way he did on another team.

Also, for those advocating to always draft BPA without regards of fit, it's pretty obvious to me, considering the type of players and positions they played, that the Thunder did consider fit as part of their process to decide who was the best player available.

I think there are quite a few players picked high who ended up in a situation that was a bad fit and consequently didn't develop as well as they could have in another situation. Maybe some people (or a lot) see this differently but I don't have to go any further back than last year's number 2 pick, Derrick Williams, for an example of someone ending up in a bad situation to develop who might have done better elsewhere.

Some teams are much better at developing players than others and some situations are much better for the development of a specific player than other situation. Simply looking back at a draft and deciding whether a certain pick was wrong or right based on how a player has developed years is way too simplistic. Context matters for how players turn out.

Actually we can also use Kawhi Leonard as an example of right team at the right time. I remember him saying how much he loved Toronto, everyone passed on him and he help big time in the spurs run last year. Great contributor in my opinion.

Don't have insider access, so can't see the article, but drafting Bargnani was not a mistake. The mistake was not trading him.

Maybe,,, but for anyone who watched NCAA and saw the success progress and work ethic of LaMarcus Aldridge in Highschool and through to UTexas could project his as a quality big man... The real dilema of that draft was Brandon Roy v LaMarcus Aldridge... it would have been tragic to draft BRoy.

Maybe,,, but for anyone who watched NCAA and saw the success progress and work ethic of LaMarcus Aldridge in Highschool and through to UTexas could project his as a quality big man... The real dilema of that draft was Brandon Roy v LaMarcus Aldridge... it would have been tragic to draft BRoy.

Would it?
That dude was a superstar for 3 years. With him and bosh, we could've had a good run. Sure the ending would've been tragic but I'd rather have 3 awesome years from one of the classiest, most clutch players in the league than the alternative.

Would it?
That dude was a superstar for 3 years. With him and bosh, we could've had a good run. Sure the ending would've been tragic but I'd rather have 3 awesome years from one of the classiest, most clutch players in the league than the alternative.

good point because during the bROY years there was much jubilation in POR. My point is at the number one spot I would have deliberated between LaMarcus and Roy... But Colangelo had wood for Bargs and there was no deterring him... its evident because he keeps sticking with him.

good point because during the bROY years there was much jubilation in POR. My point is at the number one spot I would have deliberated between LaMarcus and Roy... But Colangelo had wood for Bargs and there was no deterring him... its evident because he keeps sticking with him.

What if Bryan and Andrea were really in love, that would be hilarious, if this were a movie it would be something like Brokeback mountain meets love and basketball, with phrases like nobody can understand our love, or I love you more than I love pasta said frequently